Here’s a question I came across on the JREF forums by one of the members, which I’ll post here as well, just to raise a point:
Scientists can correctly predict astronomical occurrences…down to the minute, and often down to the second. Why should psychics and prophets be held to a lesser standard?
It is true that psychics use a different method than scientists to allegedly gain their knowledge, but this is merely a statement that ‘They are different ways of knowing, therefore they are different ways of knowing,’ which is begging the question and does not serve as a valid excuse for why psychic predictions are not only always a little of target, but often completely wrong (when made beforehand and meaningfully specific in time of fulfillment and content).
Dedicated believers in the paranormal see nothing logically inconsistent with criticizing ‘mere materialistic scientists’ like meteorologists about even slightly inaccurate weather forecasts, and at the same time coming up with all manner of ‘reasons’ to support psychics whose only meaningfully accurate predictions are those made after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20, though most savvy media psychics will tailor their retrodictions to make them just a little off target to avoid suspicion.
Saying that the psychic and science are different provides no valid reason for giving the psychic a free pass no matter how off target its predictions, yet castigating science for even the smallest uncertainty or inaccuracy in the same. As the believers like to say, and as I will now, “…the forest for the trees, people!”
If psychic abilities are even as good as conventional, materialistic ‘ways of knowing,’ much less superior, what is the logic that they shouldn’t be held to at least the same if not better standards of accuracy? I’m gonna pull an Oprah and say, ‘I’m just asking questions.’